Beauty and The Beast Mechanisms of Sexual Selection in Humans1

Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157 175
Review Article
Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans

David A. Puts
Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Initial receipt 21 April 2009; final revision received 23 February 2010
Abstract
Literature in evolutionary psychology suggests that mate choice has been the primary mechanism of sexual selection in humans, but this
conclusion conforms neither to theoretical predictions nor available evidence. Contests override other mechanisms of sexual selection; that is,
when individuals can exclude their competitors by force or threat of force, mate choice, sperm competition, and other mechanisms are
impossible. Mates are easier to monopolize in two dimensional mating environments, such as land, than in three-dimensional environments,
such as air, water, and trees. Thus, two-dimensional mating environments may tend to favor the evolution of contests. The twodimensionality of the human mating environment, along with phylogeny, the spatial and temporal clustering of mates and competitors, and
anatomical considerations, predict that contest competition should have been the primary mechanism of sexual selection in men. A functional
analysis supports this prediction. Men's traits are better designed for contest competition than for other sexual selection mechanisms; size,
muscularity, strength, aggression, and the manufacture and use of weapons probably helped ancestral males win contests directly, and deep
voices and facial hair signal dominance more effectively than they increase attractiveness. However, male monopolization of females was
imperfect, and female mate choice, sperm competition, and sexual coercion also likely shaped men's traits. In contrast, male mate choice was
probably central in women's mating competition because ancestral females could not constrain the choices of larger and more aggressive
males through force, and attractive women could obtain greater male investment. Neotenous female features and body fat deposition on the
breasts and hips appear to have been shaped by male mate choice.
2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Evolutionary psychology; Contest competition; Mate choice; Mating; Sexual selection
1. Introduction
Viewing human mating in a developed nation, one
surmises that success in heterosexual competition for mates
entails attracting members of the opposite sex. Beauty,
fashion, and physical fitness are so important in places like
the United States that they have become multi-billion dollar
industries. Men and women have virtual autonomy to choose
their mates. These conditions are so pervasive that it is
tempting to think that they have characterized our evolution
that humans evolved in a context where, in the mating
arena, the preferences of the opposite sex were the primary
forces shaping our phenotypes.
With notable exceptions (e.g., Apostolou, 2007; Archer,
2009; Buss & Dedden, 1990; Buss & Duntley, 2006; Buss
& Shackelford 1997; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Lassek &
Gaulin, 2009; Sell et al., 2009), the recent literature in
E-mail address: dap27@psu.edu.

1090-5138/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.005
evolutionary psychology reinforces this impression. The

vast majority of research on sexual selection in Homo
sapiens focuses on mate choice. Of papers on human sexual
selection, more than 75% (55 of 73) published from 1997 to
2007 in the journals Evolution and Human Behavior and
Human Nature mainly concern mate choice (categorized
by the present author and a trained research assistant into
mate choice, dominance and status competition, and
other, according to the hypotheses tested in the paper).
According to an influential researcher, in sexual species,
all genes must propagate through the gateway of sex, and
mate choice is the guardian of that gateway. For this reason,
sexual courtship was probably central in human evolution
and remains central in modern human life (Miller, 1998, p.
119). According to another leading researcher, the desires
of one sex establish the critical dimensions along which
members of the opposite sex compete (Buss, 1996, p. 307).
The extensive evidence leaves little doubt that the
preferences of each sex have been important selection
pressures on the other.
158
D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175
But has mate choice been the primary mechanism of

human sexual selection, as the literature might suggest? I
argue here that it has not. Rather, contest competitionin
which force or threats of force are used to exclude same-sex
rivals from mating opportunitieshas been the main form of
mating competition in men, whereas male mate choice has
predominated as a mechanism of sexual selection operating
on women. This argument will be built on theory developed
from cross-species comparison and subsequently tested by
examining evidence of apparent design in humans.
2.1. Mechanisms of sexual selection
2. Sexual selection
2.1.1. Constraints on contest competition

We can begin with the premise that same-sex contests can
override other mechanisms of sexual selection. If contest
outcomes are decisive, with winners excluding losers from
proximity to potential mates, there will be no opportunity for
choice (thus no need for coercion) and no sperm competition.
Other mechanisms can occur only to the extent that the
competing sex (for brevity, males, unless noted otherwise)
cannot exclude competitors from potential mates by force or
threat. Logically, the next step is to determine what might
limit contest competition across species, affecting males'
ability to monopolize females by force.
One limiting factor is the spatial and temporal clustering
of females (Emlen & Oring, 1977). Resource distribution
Darwin (1859; 1871) proposed sexual selection to explain

traits that seemed harmful to survivalthe hooked jaw of the
male salmon, the stag's antlers, the cock's spurs, and the
gorgeous plumage and strange antics (1859, p. 137) of
the male rock-thrush and bird of paradise, for example.
Although these traits might impair survival, Darwin
postulated that they could nevertheless promote their own
passage into the next generation by helping their bearers win
mating opportunities: They could be favored under sexual
selection. In the intervening years, a massive literature has
validated this postulate and elaborated on the modes of
sexual selection and the traits that each mode favors. Samesex contests favor size, strength, weapons, and aggression,
for example, whereas mate choice favors sexual ornaments
and displays. (The term ornament is used here to refer to a
trait that contributes to fitness primarily through a preference
for this trait in the opposite sex.) Sperm competition favors
the production of large ejaculates, motile sperm, and frequent
copulation, scramble competition favors sensory and
locomotory organs for swift mate location (Andersson,
1994, Table 1.1.1), and sexual coercion favors size, strength,
and other traits that facilitate harassment, punishment, and
forced copulation (Savalli, 2001).
We have also made considerable headway in understanding why one sex, usually males, often exhibits more
elaborate ornamentation, mating displays, aggression, weaponry, and so forth. Clearly, the sex whose reproduction is
more reliant on access to mates will experience stronger
sexual selection. This depends on the operational sex ratio,
the ratio of fertilizable females to sexually active males at a
given time (Emlen, 1976). A scarcity of available mates
forces the commoner sex into competition for them. The
operational sex ratio, in turn, depends on the relative
reproductive rates of males and females (Clutton-Brock &
Vincent, 1991), and these rates typically depend on relative
parental investment (Bateman, 1948; Trivers, 1972; Williams, 1966). In general, the sex that invests less in
producing and rearing offspring finishes each reproductive
venture sooner and re-enters the mating pool to find a
shortage of the more-investing, slower-reproducing sex.
Because males usually invest less than females do, males are
usually more competitive for mates.
Despite such advances toward our understanding of

sexual selection, one question has attracted surprisingly little
attention: What mechanisms of sexual selection will operate
in a given species? That is, can we predict whether mating
competition will take the form of ornaments and displays for
attracting mates, weapons and aggression for excluding
competitors by force, traits for winning fertilizations in
sperm competition, another mechanism of sexual selection,
or some combination of these (Fig. 1)?
Fig. 1. Different mechanisms of sexual selection are theoretically distinct

avenues by which mates can be obtained. Mechanisms vary in importance to
fitness across species. Distance along an axis represents the correlation
between success in that form of mating competition and mating success.
(Examples are approximations.)
and predator risk determine the distribution of females,

which determines the distribution of males (Leutenegger &
Kelly, 1977; Lindenfors, Froberg, & Nunn, 2004). If females
form groups or are solitary but closely dispersed, they may
be collectively defensible by a single male. This can lead to
intense male contests for control of multiple females (Emlen
& Oring, 1977). However, if groups of females are large, a
single male cannot exclude competitors, leading to multimale, multi-female groups, thus reducing the importance of
contests (Leutenegger & Kelly, 1977). For example, males
have reduced canines and are smaller overall in relation to
females among multi-male group-living primates, compared
to those that exhibit single-male polygyny (Clutton-Brock &
Harvey, 1984). However, testes are larger relative to body
weight in multi-male groups (Harcourt, Harvey, Larson, &
Short, 1981), indicating more sperm competition. This
suggests that multi-male and single-male primates differ in
the mechanism, but not necessarily the strength, of sexual
selection. Temporal clustering due to breeding synchrony
can also make multiple fertile females difficult for a single
male to defend, especially if the females are widely
distributed spatially (Emlen & Oring, 1977).
A second constraint on contests may be ecological costs.
Flight (Caizergues & Lambrechts, 1999; Tobalske & Dial,
2000) and arboreality (Crook, 1972) should limit the
evolution of the large bodies that would otherwise be useful
for winning contests. Contests are relatively rare among
birds (Emlen & Oring, 1977) and most intense among largely
terrestrial birds in which males compete on land for display
territories (Payne, 1984). Arboreal primates also exhibit less
body size dimorphism than terrestrial ones (Clutton-Brock,
Harvey, & Rudder, 1977; Plavcan & van Schaik, 1997).
Third, anatomical characteristics determine the benefits
of contests. Gaulin and Sailer (1984) pointed out that the
force generated by a blow increases with mass (a cubic
function of length), whereas the ability to resist the blow
increases at most as a square function (e.g., cross-sectional
surface area of bone). Consequently, larger animals should
be able to inflict more damaging blows. Males of larger
species might therefore be more successful in excluding
competitors by force or threat, and contests might be
likelier to evolve.
Although the above variables may affect males' ability to
monopolize mates, none is satisfactory as a general
explanation. Intense contests occur across all social structures, including multi-male groups (e.g., yellow baboons),
single-male groups (e.g., gorillas and red deer), and solitary
species (e.g., beetles and orangutans). Moreover, ecological
constraints on body size explain neither the rarity of contests
in aquatic environments (Andersson, 1994), which impose
few size limitations (consider blue whales), nor the
frequency of contests in small-bodied animals, such as
arthropods. Finally, contests require only the physical
monopolization of mates, not the ability to injure competitors. Thus, contests may be intense in small animals, such as
beetles (Eberhard, 1979).
159
2.1.2. The dimensionality hypothesis

An ecological variable that has apparently escaped notice
in this context is the dimensionality of the environment in
which mating competition takes place. To succeed in
contests, males must exclude same-sex competitors from
mates or the resources necessary to attract them (Emlen &
Oring, 1977). This may be feasible in the essentially onedimensional environments of burrows and tunnels, and in
two-dimensional environments such as dry land, but
impossible in three dimensions (air, water, or trees), where
there are too many in-routes for competitors. For example,
the three-dimensional aquatic environment of bottlenose
dolphins hinders individual males from monopolizing
females, resulting in a promiscuous mating system (Connor,
Richards, Smolker, & Mann, 1996), and presumably
sperm competition.
Fig. 2 illustrates differences in the relative size and
dimensionality of the region that must be defended when
mating competition takes place in (a) a one-dimensional
environment (e.g., dung beetles competing for mates in a
tunnel), (b) a two-dimensional environment (e.g., fur seals
competing for mates on land), (c) a three-dimensional
environment bounded by a territory (e.g., blue-headed
wrasses guarding coral reefs), and (d) an open threedimensional environment (e.g., bottlenose dolphins competing for mates in the open ocean). Whereas the difficulty of
defense increases linearly with the radius of the defense
region in two dimensions, it increases with the square of this
radius in three-dimensional environments.
2.1.3. Evidence for the dimensionality hypothesis
Qualitative comparative evidence suggests that the
dimensionality of the mating environment explains substantial interspecific variation in contest competition, and
Fig. 2. Small discs, hemispheres and spheres represent females' movement

in relation to each other. Cylinder and large disc, hemisphere and sphere
represent the regions that a male must defend in order to monopolize the
females depicted. Defense regions increase in size and decrease in
defensibility from left to right and top to bottom and represent (A) onedimensional, (B) two-dimensional, (C) three-dimensional hemispheric, and
(D) three-dimensional spherical regions.
160
consequently, other mechanisms of sexual selection. For

example, contests are more extreme in arthropods that
compete for mates on land (e.g., beetles, pseudoscorpions,
and spiders: Eberhard, 1979; Watson, 1990; Zeh, 1987) and
the floors of bodies of water (e.g., crabs and crayfish: Christy
& Salmon, 1991; Crane, 1975; Snedden, 1990; Sneddon,
Huntingford, & Taylor, 1997), than in those that fly, such as
butterflies, katydids, and locusts (Andersson, 1994). Contests are especially intense among arthropods, such as some
dung beetles, that compete for mates in the essentially onedimensional environments of burrows or tunnels (Emlen,
2008; Emlen & Philips, 2006).
Contests are rare in the three-dimensional aquatic
environments of fish (Andersson, 1994), whereas mate
choice (Noble, 1938) and sperm competition (e.g., Fuller,
1998) are more common. However, contests occur in species
such as bluegills (Gross & MacMillan, 1981), wrasses
(Robertson & Hoffman, 1977), and pufferfish (Gladstone,
1987), where males guard territories on lake, stream, or sea
floors (Turner, 1993) and mating environments are thus
reduced in volume. In sockeye salmon, mating competition
occurs in the shallow, effectively two-dimensional headwaters of streams (Quinn, Hendry, & Buck, 2001), and males
use body size and specialized hooked jaws to fight for
females (Quinn, Adkison, & Ward, 1996).
Mate choice is the predominant mechanism of sexual
selection across bird species (Andersson, 1994; Emlen &
Oring, 1977), which because of flight tend to compete for
mates in three dimensions. Terrestriality is a derived trait in
birds, evolving independently at least four times in
Galliformes, Struthioniformes, Casuariiformes, and Rheiformes. Each of these incidences of evolution toward a
more two-dimensional mating environment is associated
with a movement away from social monogamy and an
increase in contest competition (Andersson, 1994; Emlen &
Oring, 1977).
Scrambles may be the primary sexual selection mechanism in aquatically-mating pinnipeds. Female Weddell seals
are larger than males, and males obtain copulations
underwater via speed and agility (Andersson, 1994).
However, in terrestrially-breeding pinnipeds, such as sea
lions, elephant seals, and fur seals, males are several times
the size of females, and male contests are intense and bloody
(Boyd, 1989; Le Boeuf, 1974; Lindenfors, Tullberg, &
Biuw, 2002). Thus, among pinnipeds, male contests and
large body size have evolved in two-dimensional mating
environments despite the ecological costs of carrying a large
body on land.
Contests are also common among terrestrial primates,
which exhibit greater body and canine size sexual dimorphism than arboreal and arboreal/terrestrial species (CluttonBrock et al., 1977; Leutenegger & Cheverud, 1982; Plavcan
& van Schaik, 1997). Differences in body size dimorphism
might reflect mass limitations of arboreality (Clutton-Brock
et al., 1977). However, arboreality imposes no clear
constraints on canine size, and selection in terrestrial species
favoring larger canines for predator defense (Leutenegger &

Kelly, 1977) should affect both sexes. Reduced contest
competition in three-dimensional arboreal environments
may have decreased body and canine size dimorphism and
increased the importance of mate choice. Female preferences
for brightly-colored males have been demonstrated in
arboreal primates (Cooper & Hosey, 2003), which apparently exhibit greater sexual dichromatism than terrestrial
primates (Crockett, 1987).
The dimensionality of the mating environment thus helps
explain why contests occur in some taxa and not others.
Having developed a theoretical framework for predicting the
mechanisms and relative intensity of sexual selection, we
return our attention to humans.
3. Sexual selection in humans

Women invest more in offspring than men do through
gestation and nursing for up to several years in foraging
societies (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989) and through providing more
parental care on average in all known societies (Hewlett,
1992). Greater investment slows women's reproductive
rates, skewing the operational sex ratio so that there are
more males than females available for mating. Across
species, these conditions foster mating competition in the
more rapidly-reproducing sex. Evidence suggests that men
have indeed experienced stronger sexual selection. Compared to women, men have higher reproductive variance
(e.g., Brown, Laland, & Borgerhoff Mulder, 2009; Howell,
1979), are larger, more muscular, mature later, and senesce
and die soonerall correlates of an effectively polygynous
mating system (Daly & Wilson, 1983). However, men invest
heavily in offspring compared with males of most animal
species and virtually all mammals. This investment constitutes a basis for female competition. Evidence (below)
suggests that sexual selection has influenced women's
phenotypes as well.
The variables proposed to predict sexual selection
mechanisms are nearly unanimous: contests should be the
dominant mode of sexual selection in men (Table 1). More
precisely, ancestral men's mating success should have
correlated more strongly with success in male contests than
with success in other modes of sexual selection. [See
Schwagmeyer and Woontner (1986) for a similar comparison of contests and scrambles in ground squirrels.] The twodimensionality of the human mating environment, combined
with female sociality and breeding asynchrony, should
facilitate female defense. Men's large size enables them to
inflict damaging blows, and phylogenetic relationships also
predict male contests in humans, along with some sperm
competition, mate choice, and coercion. All three genera of
non-human great apes show intense male contests with some
female choice, and significant sperm competition and sexual
coercion in Pan and Pongo (Knott, Emery Thompson,
Stumpf, & McIntyre, 2009; Muller, Kahlenberg, Emery

Table 1
Variables influencing contest competition and predictions regarding humans
Variable influencing contest
competition
Dimensionality of mating
environment
Body size
Capability of physically
constraining opposite sex
Temporal clumping of
available mates
Spatial clumping of mates
and competitors
Value of variable (prediction regarding

contests)
Males
Females
2D (Contests)
2D (Contests)
Large (Contests)
Yes (Contests)
Large (Contests)
No (No Contests)
No (Contests)
No (Contests)
Multi-male/
multi-female groups
(Contests reduced)
No (Contests)
Multi-male/
multi-female groups
(Contests reduced)
No (Contests)
Body-size constraints of
flight or arboreality
Contests in close phylogenetic Yes (Contests)
relatives
161
can tentatively conclude that it evolved for this function.

This can be demonstrated by cross-species comparison. For
example, the hypothesis that horns in male beetles function
in combat is supported if hornlike structures are present in
species with male combat and absent in species without it. In
parallel, within species, functional hypotheses are bolstered
by correlations between a trait (e.g., horn size) and its
proposed function (fighting efficiency). The strongest
within-species evidence involves experimental manipulation
that affects the trait's utility in the predicted direction. The
more efficiently a trait performs its hypothesized function
compared with alternative functions, the stronger support for
the adaptive hypothesis.
3.2. Male contests
No (No contests)
Thompson, & Wrangham, 2007; Nishida & HiraiwaHasegawa, 1987; Rodman & Mitani, 1987; Smuts, 1987).
Only multi-male groups are predicted to reduce individual
males' abilities to monopolize females, elevating the
importance of other forms of sexual selection, but the
influence of this variable may be mitigated in humans
(see below).
Female contests are absent in humans' close phylogenetic
relatives, and monopolization of mates is likely to be
unfeasible in women, as well (Table 1). The multi-female
structure of human groups should have hindered ancestral
females from excluding their competitors from mates.
Indeed, in the presence of multiple same-sex competitors,
successful mate defense probably depends partly on mates'
cooperation. However, evolutionary models suggest that
such cooperation will tend to evolve in one sex when the
other is physically dominant and thus capable of sexual
coercion (Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995). Yet, men are
greater in size and physical prowess than women are, and
thus, men should be prohibitively difficult to constrain in
their choices. We can therefore predict that female mating
competition would favor traits to attract men, rather than
physically monopolize them.
Before these predictions can be evaluated, it is necessary
to clarify what constitutes evidence of a trait's adaptive
function in winning mates. For example, is a particular trait a
weapon or an ornament, a dominance signal or a mate
attraction display?
3.1. Testing evolutionary predictions
One can infer ancestral selection pressures by studying
the adaptations that they produced. Natural selection is the
only evolutionary process to systematically produce traits
that appear engineered for specific functions (Williams,
1966). If, under scrutiny, a trait looks well-suited to a
purpose that would have benefited ancestral bearers, then we
3.2.1. Evidence of design for male contests

All of these types of evidence support the prediction that
male contests have been important in human evolution. Men
are larger, stronger, faster, and more physically aggressive
than women, and the degree of sexual dimorphism in these
traits rivals that of species with intense male contests. The
relatively modest 8% stature dimorphism in humans (Gaulin
& Boster, 1985) and a difference of about 1520% in body
mass (Mayhew & Salm, 1990) might suggest that male
contests are reduced compared with our closest relatives.
However, human sex differences in size underestimate sex
differences in the traits most relevant to contests. This is
partly because women are unique among primates in having
copious fat stores (Pond & Mattacks, 1987), perhaps for
building the large, fatty brains of human offspring (Lassek &
Gaulin, 2008), and as sexual ornamentation (see below).
When fat-free mass is considered, men are 40% heavier
(Lassek & Gaulin, 2009; Mayhew & Salm, 1990) and have
60% more total lean muscle mass than women. Men have
80% greater arm muscle mass and 50% more lower body
muscle mass (Abe, Kearns, & Fukunaga, 2003). Lassek and
Gaulin (2009) note that the sex difference in upper-body
muscle mass in humans is similar to the sex difference in fatfree mass in gorillas (Zihlman & MacFarland, 2000), the
most sexually dimorphic of all living primates.
These differences in muscularity translate into large
differences in strength and speed. Men have about 90%
greater upper-body strength, a difference of approximately
three standard deviations (Abe et al., 2003; Lassek & Gaulin,
2009). The average man is stronger than 99.9% of women
(Lassek & Gaulin, 2009). Men also have about 65% greater
lower body strength (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009; Mayhew &
Salm, 1990), over 45% higher vertical leap, and over 22%
faster sprint times (Mayhew & Salm, 1990). Contrary to
earlier claims, sex differences in anaerobic sprint speeds are
not narrowing (Cheuvront, Carter, Deruisseau, & Moffatt,
2005; Seiler, De Koning, & Foster, 2007).
Men and boys are more physically aggressive than
women and girls (Archer, 2004, 2009). Boys engage in more
play-fighting, and the amount of play-fighting a boy engages
162
in correlates positively with peers' rankings of his dominance (Pellegrini, 1995; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Men
report engaging in, and inclinations to engage in, nearly one
standard deviation more physical aggression than women
(Buss & Perry, 1992). Men perpetrate more offensive
physical aggression, defined as non-defensive attacking,
hitting, and/or restraining another individual in all societies
studied (Ellis et al., 2008). The vast majority of same-sex
homicides (about 95%), from every society and time period
for which data are available, are committed by men (Daly &
Wilson, 1988; M. Wilson & Daly, 1985). Importantly, these
data do not include war killings, which occur almost entirely
at the hands of men (Adams, 1983). Traumatic injuries in
ancient skeletal remains indicate that interpersonal violence
was especially prevalent among men throughout human
history and prehistory (Walker, 2001).
Such sex differences in traumatic skeletal injuries may
help explain why some aspects of men's skeletons,
particularly in the face, are more robust. For example, in
modern populations, the incidence of mandibular fractures is
approximately five times higher in men than in women,
young men are disproportionately represented, and the
primary cause is typically found to be violent assault with
a fist or blunt object (Adi, Ogden, & Chisholm, 1990; Haug,
Prather, & Indresano, 1990; Scherer, Sullivan, Smith,
Phillips, & Robson, 1989; Sojat, Meisami, Sandor, &
Clokie, 2001). A similar pattern in the evolutionary past
could have selected for more robust mandibles in men than
in women.
Certainly, size, strength, speed, and aggression in men
correlate with physical competitive ability, and manipulations that increase these variables lead to greater physical
prowess. This is why many athletes abuse anabolic steroids.
Relatively greater male upper-body (compared with lowerbody) muscle mass and strength in particular suggest an
evolutionary history of fighting (Sell et al., 2009). These
traits also characterize male contests across species; males
are larger, stronger and more aggressive in diverse species
with male contests across the animal kingdom (Andersson,
1994). Close relatives of humans with minimal male
contests, such as gibbons, lack substantial sex differences
in size, strength, and aggression.
Men possess several traits that appear to function
primarily in threatening rivals. For example, beards and
eyebrow hair grow at puberty in males and may signal
dominance through association with testosterone levels and
by increasing the apparent size of the jaw and brow (Guthrie,
1970; Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave & Shields,
2008). Male faces with beards are rated as more dominant
than the same faces clean-shaven (Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave & Shields, 2008). Likewise, deep, lowpitched voices increase men's apparent size (Feinberg,
Jones, Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2005) and dominance (Puts,
Gaulin, & Verdolini, 2006; Puts, Hodges, Cardenas, &
Gaulin, 2007). Perhaps deep voices signal dominance in men
partly because they correlate with high testosterone levels
(Bruckert, Lienard, Lacroix, Kreutzer, & Leboucher, 2006;

Dabbs & Mallinger, 1999; Evans, Neave, Wakelin, &
Hamilton, 2008). Across animals, low-pitch vocalizations
generally signal dominance, and high-pitch vocalizations
signal submissiveness (Morton, 1977; Morton & Page,
1992). In the laboratory, men who reported superior fighting
ability tended to lower their voice pitch during mating
competition, whereas those who perceived themselves to be
poor fighters raised their pitch (Puts et al., 2006).
It is often claimed (e.g., Lorenz, 1966) that men lack
antlers, long canines, or other weapons typical of intense
contest competition. However, these traits are called
weapons by analogy with human weapons, and for as
long as there is any record, weapons have been manufactured
and wielded almost entirely by men (Christensen, 2004;
D'Andrade, 1974; Darwin, 1871; Gat, 2006). The first
known combat weapons were also used in hunting
(Christensen, 2004), which is performed nearly exclusively
by men in foraging societies (Murdock, 1967). It is therefore
appropriate to consider weapons a part of men's phenotype.
The use of projectile weapons must have selected for
targeting abilities, which show the largest known cognitive
human sex difference, with an effect size of about 1.5
standard deviations favoring men (Hines et al., 2003;
Kimura, 1999). Thus, the already large sex differences in
muscle mass, strength, speed, and aggression probably
underestimate the intensity of contest competition in men.
Men's anatomy and behavior seem well designed for
contest competition. The alternative hypothesis that these
traits evolved in the service of hunting (e.g., Lancaster &
Kaplan, 2009) is unsatisfying partly because it is unparsimonious: across the animal kingdom, where one finds large,
strong, aggressive males with weapons, it is almost always
because males employ these traits in fights for females
(Andersson, 1994). The hunting hypothesis also has
difficulty explaining traits such as beards, deep voices,
robust skulls, and male-male aggression that are easily
explicable by male contest competition. Even targeting
ability may have emerged in the context of male contests:
male chimpanzees throw rocks and branches with far greater
frequency than do females, and the targets are other males,
not prey (Goodall, 1968; Van Lawick-Goodall, 1971).
Although superior targeting ability in men was likely shaped
for both male contests and efficient hunting, men also exhibit
superior intercepting abilities (Watson & Kimura, 1991),
which are difficult to comprehend as adaptations for hunting
(Mark Flinn, personal communication). Finally, orangutans,
gorillas, chimpanzees, and early hominins, such as Australopithecus afarensis and A. anamenis (Leakey, Feibel,
McDougall, Ward, & Walker, 1998; Plavcan, Lockwood,
Kimbel, Lague, & Harmon, 2005; Reno, Meindl, McCollum,
& Lovejoy, 2003, 2005; Ward, Leakey, & Walker, 1999), all
exhibit moderate to high degrees of sexual dimorphism, and
intense male contests occur in all genera of extant great apes.
Substantial sexual dimorphism and contests thus probably
existed in the earliest hominins, yet hunting became a major
source of food only as early as perhaps 2.5 million years ago

(Dominguez-Rodrigo, Pickering, Semaw, & Rogers, 2005).
Greater male size and strength probably preceded hunting in
our lineage, and thus could not have resulted from it.
3.2.2. Human mating systems and the role of male contests
Although it seems clear that contest competition shaped
many of men's traits, it is less clear how success in male
contests increased mating opportunities over human evolution. Several possibilities exist. First, coalitional aggression
could have facilitated acquisition and defense of mates
against other groups of males. Second, males could have
used force or force threat within their groups to acquire and
defend one or more long-term mates, or to obtain
disproportionate short-term mating opportunities. Finally,
contests could have contributed indirectly to mating success
if dominant males could acquire resources, territory, or status
needed to attract females. To what extent did these
possibilities apply to ancestral humans?
3.2.2.1. Male coalitions and between-group competition.
The tendency of males to form alliances may have
evolved in the common ancestor of humans and our closest
living relatives, Pan, as a means of cooperative female
capture and defense (Fig. 3), although coalitions may also
have evolved independently in these lineages for this
purpose (Geary & Flinn, 2001; Wrangham, 1999). Male
coalitions are rare among primates but common in humans
and Pan, especially common chimpanzees (P. troglodytes),
and are strengthened by kinship (Nishida & HiraiwaHasegawa, 1987). The capture of women was a primary
objective of early warfare (Darwin, 1871; Hrdy, 1997;
Lerner, 1986; Spencer, 1885), and among foragers, groups of
men commonly raid other villages and abscond with women
Fig. 3. From a great ape progenitor with single-male polygyny and singlemale social groups (1) (Harrison & Chivers, 2007), two trajectories for
African apes are depicted: a continuation of this pattern in Gorilla, and the
evolution of multi-male groups for female defense, as in African lions, in the
common ancestor of Pan and Homo (2). In Pan, within-group monopolization of females was difficult, and greater sperm competition thus
predominated (3), resulting in lower sexual dimorphism (Jungers & Susman,
1984) but larger investments in testicular tissue (Short, 1979). In Homo and
their immediate ancestors, individual males more effectively monopolized
females, perhaps due female cooperation, between-group competition, and
more intensive use of weapons.
163
(e.g., Chagnon, 1988). Such raids may also function in mate

defense by deterring future attacks. These behaviors would
tend to favor not only aggression and physical prowess, but
also social intelligence for negotiating alliances (e.g.,
Alexander, 1989; Geary & Flinn, 2002; Mueller & Mazur,
1996; Wrangham, 1999).
3.2.2.2. Within-group competition. Despite their relevance
in Pan and Homo, alliances are open to subversion; if one
member can gain a reproductive advantage, he may defect.
Male chimpanzees not only cooperate to defend their
community range against outside males but also fight within
groups over estrous females (Nishida & Hiraiwa-Hasegawa,
1987). As noted, multi-male groups should make females
more difficult to defend from other group members. The
cross-cultural ubiquity of within-group aggression between
men (Daly & Wilson, 1988), male violence against women
over suspected infidelity (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Smuts,
1996), high levels of male sexual jealousy (Buss, Larsen,
Westen, & Semelroth, 1997; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst,
1982; Schtzwohl & Koch, 2004), and evidence of moderate
sperm competition (Harcourt, Purvis, & Liles, 1995; Wyckoff, Wang, & Wu, 2000) indicate that men have had to
defend their mates within their groups, as well.
Yet, within multi-male groups, men form enduring
mateships with one or more females and usually have
near-exclusive sexual access (Daly & Wilson, 1983; Flinn,
Quinlan, Ward, & Coe, 2007). Among Yanomamo huntergatherers, approximately 10% of offspring are sired by a man
other than the mother's social partner (Chagnon, 1979). This
number has been estimated to be 2% (Simmons, Firman,
Rhodes, & Peters, 2004), 4% (Bellis, Hughes, Hughes, &
Ashton, 2005) and 9% (Baker & Bellis, 1995) across modern
societies. The cross-cultural frequency of these conditions
enduring mateships and relatively low rates of extrapair
paternitysuggests that they characterized early Homo
sapiens. Women's inconspicuous estrus also suggests a
single-male mating system (Clutton-Brock & Harvey, 1976;
Hrdy, 1997; Nunn, 1999) and, thus, that ancestral males
could monopolize females.
Several factors may have contributed to ancestral males'
ability to monopolize females. First, the importance of male
alliances might have reduced within-group conflict, enabling
individual malesespecially those distinguished in intergroup conflictto monopolize one or more females (Hrdy,
1997; Smuts, 1995). Among the horticultural Yanomamo of
Venezuela, men who have killed enemies in intergroup
conflict have more wives (Chagnon, 1988). However, male
chimpanzees also form alliances but are unable to similarly
monopolize females for prolonged periods.
Second, acquisition and long-term defense of females by
individual males may have been promoted by enhanced
cooperation from females as a result of male investment
(Geary & Flinn, 2001). Serial long-term mating in particular
may have been an important means by which dominant
males could monopolize the reproductive careers of multiple
164
females while having to defend (and invest in) only one

female at a time (Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Johanna, Forsberg,
& Tullberg, 1995; Kaar, Jokela, Merila, Helle, & Kojola,
1998; Marlowe, 2004). However, in most societies, some
men are simultaneous polygynists (Murdock, 1967), and this
was probably true of all human societies until a few hundred
years ago (Betzig, 1986, 1995).
Finally, ancestral males likely acquired and defended
females within groups through the use of force or threat of
force. This may have been facilitated by the use of lethal
weapons that can be wielded at a distance. Among the Hadza
hunter-gatherers of Tanzania, courtship of a female by more
than one male can lead to violent, possibly fatal conflict
between the males (Marlowe, 2004). Bloody and sometimes
fatal club fights erupt between Yanomamo men when one
suspects the other of trysting with his wife (Chagnon, 1992).
In these cases, the ability to inflict serious damage to a
competitor apparently functions in mate acquisition and mate
retention, respectively. Certainly, the ability to inflict
physical harm on competitors would have helped ancestral
males win such skirmishes over mates. A reputation foror
advertisement offighting ability would also have enabled
ancestral males to win and defend mates while avoiding
many costly fights. Indeed, some male traits, such as such as
deep voices and facial hair, seem more explicable as withingroup dominance signals than as functioning in betweengroup competition.
Human males have probably not competed over shortterm access to fertile females to the extent that such
competition occurs in other multi-male primates, such as
chimpanzees. Unlike chimpanzees, humans do not exhibit
conspicuous estrus. Without a reliable indicator of female
ovulatory status, males' expected reproductive return from
copulations over a short duration is low (Bongaarts & Potter,
1986; Leridon, 1977). Consequently, short-term sexual
access was probably seldom worth incurring the potentially
large costs of physical competition. However, contest
competition leading to ascension in a male dominance
hierarchy would likely have ramifying reproductive benefits,
including greater access to short-term mates and less
retaliation after trysting with already-mated females.
3.2.2.3. Competition for mate-acquisition resources, or as
sexual display. Perhaps dominant males were also more
likely to be chosen by females because dominant males had
access to better resources or territory, or because the victors
of male contests tended to provide high quality genes.
Female preferences must have affected males' ability to
acquire mates and ensure their fidelity over human evolution.
Thus, we now direct our attention to female choice.
3.3. Female choice
Women's preferences for men with resources and
willingness to invest appear culturally ubiquitous (Buss,
1989; Cashdan, 1996; Hill & Hurtado, 1996). Men likely
provide resources partly because this attracted more mates
(Buss, 1989; Hawkes, 1990, 1991) and increased mates'

fidelity (Geary & Flinn, 2001), although resource provisioning can also function as parental investment (Marlowe, 2003;
Trivers, 1972). However, foragers typically cannot accumulate great wealth or resources (Marlowe, 2005), and all
humans were foragers prior to about 10,000 years ago.
Nevertheless, women can choose mates based on less
tangible benefits, such as foraging ability (Marlowe, 2004)
and high status for offspring (Hill & Hurtado, 1996). Women
can also obtain protection from rape and harm to offspring
(Smuts, 1996). Male infanticide of unrelated offspring is
prevalent among primates (Hrdy, 1979), including humans
(Smuts, 1996), and is mitigated by the presence of the
biological father (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Because most
human reproduction occurs within long-term mateships such
as marriage (Apostolou, 2007), preferences for such benefits
may have evolved primarily in this context (see, e.g.,
Marlowe, 2004). However, women may also extract male
investment from short-term mating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993;
Greiling & Buss, 2000; Hawkes, 1990, 1991).
3.3.1. Good genes mate choice
A growing body of evidence suggests that women also
choose mates partly on genetic quality (Roberts & Little,
2008). Because selection culls alleles associated with inferior
phenotypes, the traits most relevant to fitness should lose
heritability (Fisher, 1930), degrading the basis for good
genes mate choice. However, mutation and fluctuating
selection can maintain genetic variation. Hamilton and Zuk
(1982) suggested that parasites generate important temporally varying selection on hosts. As parasites' short
generation times facilitate rapid evolution, resistance to
infection is an essential fitness component that might remain
heritable in hosts. A preference for indicators of heritable
parasite resistance could spread and be maintained in a
population (Hamilton & Zuk, 1982).
Some animal research indicates that females choose mates
based on parasite resistance, and this resistance is heritable
(e.g., Hillgarth, 1990). An important genomic region in
mediating disease resistance is the major histocompatibility
complex (MHC). Greater MHC allelic diversity theoretically
enables recognition of more invaders and stronger immune
function. Hence, preferences for MHC-dissimilar mates are
predicted. Olfactory preferences for MHC-dissimilar mates
have been demonstrated in several vertebrate taxa, including
fish, reptiles, birds, and rodents, and in most human studies
(reviewed in Roberts & Little, 2008). Preferences for MHC
dissimilarity may produce greater MHC-specific genetic
dissimilarity within human couples than occurs between
random pairs of individuals (Chaix, Cao, & Donnelly, 2008)
and may produce attractive, healthy-looking offspring;
heterozygosity at MHC loci (Lie, Rhodes, & Simmons,
2008), has been associated with facial attractiveness and
healthy-looking skin (Lie et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2005).
Women are thus expected to prefer mates with genes that
confer disease resistance, and with few harmful mutations.
Two putative good-genes indicators are androgen-dependent

traits and fluctuating asymmetry. Androgen-dependent,
masculine traits may indicate heritable disease resistance
because androgens suppress immune function (Grossman,
1985) and may be produced in proportion to inherited
immunocompetence (Folstad & Karter, 1992). High androgen levels may increase competitive ability but attenuate
inherited immunocompetence, so that good-genes males end
up little healthier than average. Males with few harmful
mutations may also be able to produce and maintain more
elaborate androgen-dependent traits (Zahavi & Zahavi,
1997). Regulation of androgen levels and patterns of
response to androgens may thus have evolved as a means
of producing sexually selected traits in proportion to a male's
ability to safely bear them (Folstad & Karter, 1992).
Fluctuating asymmetry (FA) refers to asymmetry in anatomical traits that are normally bilaterally symmetric. FA may
negatively indicate genetic quality because it results from
developmental stresses such as mutation and parasitic
infection (Moller & Pomiankowski, 1993; Parsons, 1990,
1992; van Valen, 1962) and is moderately heritable in several
species (Moller & Thornhill, 1997).
As expected, women have been found to exhibit
preferences for the odors (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998;
Rikowski & Grammer, 1999; Thornhill & Gangestad,
1999), faces (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Yeo, 1994; Scheib,
Gangestad, & Thornhill, 1999), and voices (Hughes,
Harrison, & Gallup, 2002) of men whose external features
are symmetrical. Women also prefer men who are
somewhat more masculine than average in height (Pawlowski & Jasienska, 2005), body build (Frederick &
Haselton, 2007; Horvath, 1981), voice (Feinberg et al.,
2005; Puts, 2005), and perhaps face (e.g., Johnston, Hagel,
Franklin, Fink, & Grammer, 2001; but see Perrett et al.,
1998). Some studies have found that men's symmetry and
masculinity correlate, as might be predicted if both features
index underlying genetic quality (Gangestad & Thornhill,
2003; Scheib et al., 1999).
Presumably because they are more sexually attractive to
women, men of putatively high genetic quality tend to
expend more effort acquiring additional mates and less effort
investing in mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). For
example, men with high testosterone levels are more likely to
have extramarital sex (Booth & Dabbs, 1993) and less likely
ever to have been married (Booth & Dabbs, 1993), and
unmarried men have higher testosterone levels than do
married men (Gray, Kahlenberg, Barrett, Lipson, & Ellison,
2002). Similarly, symmetrical men have more extra-pair sex
partners (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997, 1999) and invest less
in their current mates (Gangestad, 1993; Simpson, Gangestad, Christensen, & Leck, 1999). Consequently, masculine
and symmetrical men should tend to make better sires than
long-term mates.
Predictably, women's preferences for these men are
greater for short-term, sexual (vs. long-term) relationships
and strongest during the fertile phase of the ovulatory cycle
165
(reviewed in Gangestad & Thornhill, 2008). Symmetrical,

physically attractive men are also more often the extra-pair
sexual partners of women (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997).
Women's extra-pair, but not intra-pair, sexual interest
increases near ovulation (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver,
2002), and this cyclic shift occurs mainly in women whose
primary partners are putatively of low genetic quality
(Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005; Haselton &
Gangestad, 2006; Pillsworth & Haselton, 2006). These
findings suggest that women's sexual preferences are
designed partly to recruit genetic benefits from men who
may not be the women's long-term partners. Evidence of
sperm competition and moderate rates of extra-pair paternity
across human societies (Simmons et al., 2004) support
this possibility.
3.3.2. Sexual ornaments in men?
Women's preferences raise the question of whether
men's traits are better viewed as sexual ornaments or
armaments. Female mate choice has been observed in
virtually every primate species studied (Smuts, 1987).
Paradoxically, few male primates exhibit clear sexual
ornaments (Andersson, 1994). Part of the reason may be
that females choosing males on genetic quality might prefer
dominance and the traits associated with it, and thus male
secondary sex traits adopt dual functions (Berglund,
Bisazza, & Pilastro, 1996). Berglund et al. (1996) argue
that secondary sexual characters usually originate through
contests rather than female choice partly because signals
used in contests tend to be costly to produce, are constantly
tested by competitors and, thus, should provide accurate
information about male quality to both competitors and
potential mates.
In many species, females prefer traits that function in
contests (Berglund et al., 1996; Kodrick-Brown & Brown,
1984). Low, closely-spaced vocal formant frequencies
intimidate rivals among red deer stags (Reby et al., 2005)
and are preferred by estrous females (Charlton, Reby, &
McComb, 2007). Likewise, spur length among ring-neck
pheasants is associated with both male dominance (Mateos
& Carranza, 1996) and attractiveness to females (von
Schantz, Wittzell, Gransson, Grahn, & Persson, 1996).
Estrous females choose dominant males in a variety of
nonhuman primates (Smuts, 1987); for example, dominant
male orangutans are larger and possess cheek flanges, and
females show greater willingness to mate with these males
near ovulation (Knott et al., 2009).
These ideas help explain the origin of women's
preferences for traits such as size, muscularity and deep
voices that have clear utility in contests. The idea that such
traits should be especially good indicators of male quality
also helps explain why women tend to prefer them more
for sexual relationships and during the fertile phase of the
ovulatory cycle. However, even if men's traits initially
arose through male combat, it is possible that female
choice could have become a stronger selection pressure,
166
and men's traits subsequently evolved to assume a more

ornamental role.
This hypothesis that men's traits evolved to be ornamental gains little support from the literature. Some male traits,
such as beards, have been found to decrease attractiveness to
women, yet have strong positive effects on men's appearance
of dominance (Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave &
Shields, 2008). In other cases, it is unclear whether women
prefer more masculine males. For example, women have
been found to prefer both slightly feminine-looking (Perrett
et al., 1998; Rhodes, Hickford, & Jeffery, 2000) and slightly
masculine-looking (DeBruine et al., 2006; Johnston et al.,
2001) male faces. Despite these equivocal results, facial
masculinity strongly increases the appearance of dominance,
and has substantially larger effects on dominance than
attractiveness when both are examined (DeBruine et al.,
2006; Perrett et al., 1998). Finally, although some masculine
traits, such as muscular builds (Frederick & Haselton, 2007)
and deep, masculine voices (Feinberg et al., 2005; Puts,
2005, 2006) are sexually attractive, masculinity in these traits
increases perceptions of dominance to a much greater degree
than it increases attractiveness (Fig. 4). Even near ovulation
and in the context of short-term mating (where masculine
traits are maximally attractive), masculinity has been found
to produce smaller positive effects on attractiveness to
women than on dominance as judged by men (Puts et al.,
2006) (see Fig. 4).
One might argue that there is considerable cross-cultural
variation in the importance of masculine traits for attractiveness and dominance. This is certainly true, but cultural
differences are unlikely to reverse the findings that
masculine traits have greater positive effects on perceptions
Fig. 4. Masculinity in facial hair, voice, facial structure and body build has
larger positive effects on perceptions of dominance than on perceptions of
attractiveness. Note: the important comparisons are the effects of
masculinity on attractiveness versus dominance within each study.
Between-studies comparisons are confounded by differences in the
magnitude of manipulations and other methodological details.
of dominance than they do on attractiveness. For example, in

societies in which nearly all adult men have beards, women
may prefer facial hair on men. Yet, in such societies, facial
hair will probably be even more essential to perceptions of
dominance, with a lack of facial hair being perceived as
childlike in men.
One might also argue that, although masculine traits
appear better at increasing dominance, mating success is
determined more by attractiveness. Thus, masculine traits
may actually have been favored primarily through their
utility as sexual ornaments. Existing evidence contradicts
this possibility. For example, men's voice attractiveness
predicts mating success (Hughes, Dispenza, & Gallup,
2004). Yet, when dominance and attractiveness ratings of
men's voices were used simultaneously to predict mating
success, dominance strongly predicted number of sex
partners, whereas attractiveness did not (Puts et al., 2007).
Finally, one might argue that the masculine traits
reviewed above bias a functional analysis toward the
conclusion that ancestral men competed for mates mainly
via contests, and that choosing a different set of traits
would lead to a different conclusion. However, traits that
show a high degree of sexual dimorphism, especially
those that develop at sexual maturity, are the best
candidates for targets of sexual selection (Andersson,
1994; Darwin, 1871). Choosing such traits in men
necessitates choosing masculine traits (i.e., traits that are
present to a greater degree in males), which could be
ornaments or weapons. In other words, choosing masculine traits for a functional analysis amounts to choosing
the best candidates for sexually selected traits without
implying anything about the traits' utility in contests, mate
attraction, or any other mechanism. [In long-tailed
widowbirds, long tail feathers are masculine, yet male
widowbirds use their long tails to attract females
(Andersson, 1982).] The function of masculine traits in
men was an open question, but men's traits seem better
designed for contests than for attracting mates.
Are any of men's traits properly considered sexual
ornaments (i.e., function primarily in mate attraction)?
Men's penises are longer and thicker, both relatively and
absolutely, than those of our closest relatives, chimpanzees
and gorillas, and could have evolved to signal mate quality.
Women report greater satisfaction with larger penises
(Lever, Frederick, & Peplau, 2006), so penis size may
affect a man's ability to stimulate orgasm in women
(Miller, 2000). Female orgasm may boost sperm retention,
facilitate sperm activation, and encourage additional
copulations (reviewed in Puts & Dawood, 2006, see
also Gallup et al., 2003). However, it has also been
suggested that penis size may advertise vigor to other men
(Diamond, 1997).
Geoffrey Miller (1998; 2000) is the leading proponent of
a theory that men's brains and creativity are designed to
attract females. In this view, displays of neurophysiological
efficiency advertize heritable fitness. Miller's mating-mind
hypothesis offers explanations for the evolution of large

human brains and behaviors such as humor, music, and
poetry that do not have obvious survival value. It also
accords with widespread preferences for intelligent mates
and the moderate heritability of intelligence, which affords
the opportunity for genes associated with intelligence to be
favored by mate choice.
Despite these advantages, Miller's hypothesis suffers
shortcomings (Miller, 2001). Betzig (2002) notes that sexual
selection tends to produce sexual dimorphism, but men's
brains are only slightly larger relative to body size than
women's (Ankney, 1992), and sex differences in overall
intelligence, if present, are small (Irwing & Lynn, 2005).
Although women may produce fewer creative displays than
men do (Miller, 2000), it is unclear how ancestral women
could offset the costs of producing and maintaining large
brains under Miller's hypothesis.
The mating-mind hypothesis better explains men's
investment in creative displays, rather than human
intelligence generally (Miller, 2001). Even this narrower
version encounters difficulties. Men's mental displays lack
features of an ornament advertising genetic quality. As we
have seen, putative good-genes indicators are preferred
more in short-term, sexual mating contexts, and near
ovulation (Gangestad & Thornhill, 2008). Yet, women
prefer intelligence, creativity, and humor more in long-term
relationships (Bressler, Martin, & Balshine, 2006; Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, Simpson, & Cousins, 2007; Kenrick,
Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Prokosch, Coss, Scheib, &
Blozis, 2009). Women also do not seem to prefer
intelligent men more strongly near ovulation (Gangestad
et al., 2007; Prokosch et al., 2009, but see Haselton &
Miller, 2006).
An intriguing possibility is that creative displays
represent an alternative mating tactic to male contests.
Contest competition favors not only fighting ability but
also alternative mating tactics of inferior competitors,
avoiding contests with superior rivals (Andersson, 1994,
Table 1.1.1). Alternative mating tactics probably occur in
most nonhuman primates, and often involve mate
attraction (Smuts, 1987). For example, alpha male
chimpanzees monopolize estrous females through possessive behavior, while non-alpha males form sexual
consortships away from other males (Smuts, 1987).
Consortships often appear to occur through mate choice,
although they may sometimes result from sexual coercion
(Smuts, 1987; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Given the
importance of male investment in human reproduction
(Kaplan, Hill, Lancaster, & Hurtado, 2000), creative
displays may represent super-stimuli (Miller, 2000)
designed to trigger female preferences for investing
mates. Thus, while large brains cannot presently be
regarded as sexual ornaments, men's creative displays
may represent courtship behaviors shaped by female
choice, perhaps as part of an alternative mating tactic to
contest competition.
167
3.3.3. Does female choice drive male dominance competition?

It is possible that men engage in contest competition
primarily because women prefer dominant men. Women
have been shown to prefer dominant male behavior in shortterm/sexual mating contexts and during the fertile phase of
the menstrual cycle (Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, GarverApgar, & Christensen, 2004; Snyder, Kirkpatrick, & Barrett,
2008), apparently because these preferences garnered
genetic benefits ancestrally. As noted above, women also
prefer the perquisites of dominance, including protection and
access to resources.
However, strong sexual selection through mate choice
tends to produce sexual ornaments and displaystraits
favored primarily through their utility in mate attraction.
Even in lekking species, where females choose dominant
males, males tend to evolve sexual ornaments and displays
(Andersson, 1994). But we do not see these in humans,
except possibly for creative displays and large penises.
Furthermore, some evidence suggests that women had
less freedom of mate choice ancestrally than they do in many
modern industrial societies (Apostolou, 2007; Low, 2005;
Smuts, 1995). Among foragers, reproduction occurs mainly
within the context of marriage, and familial control over
women's marriage decisions is prevalent (Apostolou, 2007).
[Men's marriages are not as strongly influenced by family
members (Apostolou, 2007).] In most societies, men may
purchase women from women's families through bride-price
or bride-service (Murdock, 1967), or steal women from other
villages (e.g., Chagnon, 1992). Men also constrain women's
choices through the threats of loss of investment and
physical injury to mates and competitors. Among both
traditional (Chagnon, 1992; Marlowe, 2004) and industrial
societies (Daly & Wilson, 1988), men injure or kill wives
whom they suspect of infidelity and injure or kill other men
in competition over women. Men's greater size, strength, and
physical aggressiveness contribute to an ability to sexually
coerce females (Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995). Women
may have less influence over mating when they lack kin
support (Smuts, 1996), and female exogamy was likely the
ancestral human condition (Chapais, 2008; Fox, 1980;
Wrangham, 1987). In general, men everywhere appear
concerned with controlling women's reproductive capacity
(e.g., Daly & Wilson, 1983; Dickemann, 1981).
This is not to say that ancestral women had little choice.
In some traditional societies women choose their spouses
(Marlowe, 2004), and across traditional societies women
frequently influence their family's choice of a spouse, are
often consulted, and occasionally elope (Apostolou, 2007).
Divorce is also commonly initiated by women (Betzig,
1989). Women have affairs, although men's proprietariness
over women makes this behavior risky (Kaighobadi &
Shackelford, 2009; Kaighobadi, Starratt, Shackelford, &
Popp, 2008; Wilson & Daly, 1993; Wilson & Daly, 1996).
Given the cross-cultural frequency of these conditions
(Apostolou, 2007), women probably also utilized these
avenues of mate choice over human evolution (Small, 1992).
168
Indeed, preferences are costly and generally do not evolve

without some compensatory benefit (but see, e.g., Ryan &
Rand, 1995).
In a species such as Homo sapiens, where mate choice
and contests occur simultaneously, it can be difficult to
disentangle their relative contributions. Several lines of
evidence reviewed above are relevant. Men's traits look
designed to make men appear threatening, or enable them to
inflict real harm. Men's beards and deep voices seem
designed specifically to increase apparent size and dominance. Size, musculature, aggression, and the manufacture
and use of weapons directly increase fighting ability. Even
masculine facial structure may be designed for fighting;
heavy brow ridges protect eyes from blows, and robust
mandibles lessen the risk of catastrophic jaw fractures, for
example. Men's traits and a human tendency toward
polygyny (Murdock, 1967) indicate an evolutionary history
of male monopolization of females through force. Many of
men's traits are probably not generally preferred by females,
and those that are appear better designed for contests than
mate attraction. Various constraints on female mating,
including familial control of marriage, female exogamy,
male sexual coercion and mate guarding, and male exclusion
of competitors by force, also challenge the notion that
ancestral men competed for dominance primarily to be
chosen by women. Although more work is needed before
firm conclusions can be drawn, cross-species comparison,
empirical evidence of design, and multiple features of human
mating support the theoretical prediction that contest
competition was the predominate form of sexual selection
in men. The contention that adult male hominids must have
been rather peripheral characters in human evolution, except
as bearers of traits sexually selected by females for their
amusement value or utility (Miller, 1998, p. 109) is almost
certainly false.
3.4. Male choice
Although contest competition may have predominated
in shaping men's traits, male mate choice is expected to
have been more important in shaping women's. Why
might women compete for mates? While men contribute
far less parental care than women do across societies
(Hewlett, 1992), men protect mates and offspring from
predators and other men, and can provide high quality
food through hunting. Men procure more food (in kcal)
than women do in foraging societies, far more than they
consume (Kaplan et al., 2000). In contemporary foragers,
men use meat to obtain mating opportunities (Hawkes,
1991) and to invest in current mates and offspring (Kaplan
et al., 2000; Marlowe, 2003), and meat probably served
this dual function over human evolution. The proportion
of a man's resources channeled toward parenting likely
depended on his paternity confidence (Anderson, Kaplan,
Lam, & Lancaster, 1999; Anderson, Kaplan, & Lancaster,
1999, 2007).
To the extent that men vary in their ability to protect and

provide, women are expected to compete for these benefits
(Cant, 1981; Geary & Flinn, 2001; Symons, 1979).
Compared to mechanisms of sexual selection in men, the
mechanism of sexual selection in women is uncontroversial.
Multi-female groups and strong selection for fighting ability
in men militated against female monopolization of men
through force. Although ancestral females could not make
themselves the only option, they could compete to be the
most attractive one. Men generally value mates' physical
attractiveness highly across societies (Buss, 1989), especially in mating contexts where male investment is highest
(Kenrick et al., 1990). Where male investment is important,
women endeavor to appear chaste and faithful, apparently to
increase attractiveness as targets of investment, and their
insults often derogate competitors' chastity and attractiveness (Cashdan, 1996; Fisher & Cox, 2009; Schmitt & Buss,
1996), apparently to make their rivals less attractive targets
of investment (Buss & Dedden, 1990). In addition, more
physically attractive women demand greater male investment and other direct and indirect benefits (Buss &
Shackelford, 2008; Pawlowski & Jasienska, 2008).
Women compete to look attractive (Cashdan, 1996, 1998;
Schmitt & Buss, 1996) and possess anatomical traits that
appear to have been shaped by male mate choice (Barber,
1995; Thornhill & Grammer, 1999). Women's residual
reproductive value peaks at sexual maturity, fecundity peaks
in the mid-twenties, and both decline rapidly near menopause (Wood, 1992). It is therefore unsurprising that men
prefer young women the world over (Buss, 1989). Several of
women's traits increase youthful appearance, including
gracile facial features, reduced body hair, and high voices
all characteristics of immature primates (Cunningham,
1986; Jones & Hill, 1993; McArthur & Berry, 1983). These
traits are also preferred by men (Collins & Missing, 2003;
Cunningham, 1986; Rilling, Kaufman, Smith, Patel, &
Worthman, 2009). Women may have evolved to exploit a
male tendency to protect and provide for infants by evolving
infant-like features, but men's preferences were probably
maintained because youthful traits in women reliably index
reproductive value, fertility, and perhaps heritable disease
resistance (Scheyd, Garver-Apgar, & Gangestad, 2008).
Women's body fat distribution also appears to be designed
to attract mates (Cant, 1981; Low, Alexander, & Noonan,
1987). No other primate is sexual dimorphic in body fat
distribution (Pond & Mattacks, 1987). Women deposit fat on
their breasts and hips as they approach sexual maturity, which
suggests that these traits are involved in mating. This
possibility is reinforced by evidence that men prefer these
traits (Marlowe, Apicella, & Reed, 2005; Singh, 1993, 1995;
Singh & Young, 1995; Streeter & McBurney, 2003). Large
body fat stores are needed for ovulation, probably to provide
the necessary resources for a long pregnancy and lactation,
but the placement of fat on the hips, buttocks, and breasts may
advertise fecundity (Jasienska, Ziomkiewicz, Ellison, Lipson, & Thune, 2004; Marlowe, 1998; Singh, 1993) and the
storage of essential fats for fetal and infant brain development

(Lassek & Gaulin, 2008; Lassek & Gaulin, 2006). The
placement of fat in these locations may also have evolved to
take advantage of existing male preferences for females with
more mammary glandular tissue and wider pelvises (Low,
1979; Low et al., 1987).
Whereas women's traits appear well-designed for mate
attraction, they do not appear designed for contest competition. Fatty breasts and hips probably do not increase fighting
ability, and feminine traits such as high-pitched voices,
reduced facial hair, and gracile faces decrease the appearance
of dominance and resistance to blows (see above).
4. Summary
The ancestral human mating system may have comprised
groups of (often related) males cooperating in female
defense. Between-group aggression, female cooperation,
and the ability to inflict lethal injuries with weapons likely
enabled some males to monopolize multiple females. At the
same time, female defense was imperfect, promoting
moderate sperm competition and female choice of both
long-term mates and extra-pair sex partners. Monopolization
of females was probably related to social skills and
attractiveness to females, but force or threat of force seems
to have been especially important. Moderate paternity
confidence coupled with efficient hunting promoted male
investment, which may have been elaborated as an
alternative mating tactic. Females may have evolved sexual
ornaments such as neotenic faces, high-pitched voices, and
fatty breasts and hips to attract male investment.
5. Conclusions
Human mating is complicated. It is the stuff of operas and
soap operas, full of manipulation and deception, aggression
and solicitude, cooperation and selfishness. It is the
culmination of multiple individual interests, sometimes
overlapping, often opposing. Human mating is perhaps
even more complicated than it appears in contemporary
industrial societies, where men and women choose their
mates largely beyond the authority of kin, women do not rely
economically on men, and men are prohibited by the state
from using force against mates and sexual competitors. As
complicated as human mating is, it is becoming clear that
contests must have been very important in determining men's
reproductive success, and male mate choice must have been
very important in determining women's reproductive success. We can predict this theoretically from the dimensionality of our mating environment, the structure of human
groups, differential parental investment, and phylogeny. We
can also see it in the traits that selection has produced.
The idea that male mate choice has been an important
selection pressure on women is relatively uncontroversial,
169
but the importance of male contests appears to contradict a

prevailing view that female mate choice has predominated in
shaping men's phenotypes. It is interesting to speculate on
why there has been such focus on mate choice. Perhaps it is
because most research has been carried out by researchers
from industrial societies, where men and women freely
choose their mates. Then again, perhaps the recent focus on
mate choiceand in particular female mate choicemay
partly be reactionary to the scant attention females were paid
in earlier sociobiological literature (see, e.g., Fedigan, 1982).
Mate choice theory is also probably more alluring to
researchers, posing fascinating questions about the importance of indicator models versus Fisherian runaway sexual
selection, for example. The research bias toward female mate
choice is not specific to human studies (Berglund et al.,
1996). Researchers have also tended to interpret, incorrectly,
as I have tried to make clear, the modest human sexual
dimorphism in overall body mass as evidence against strong
contest competition in men, ignoring large sex differences in
the allocation of fat and muscle. Much, too, depends on one's
choice of model organisms. It is easy to see parallels between
avian mating and human social monogamy, extra-pair
mating, and the like. Phylogeny and ecological selective
pressures, such as the dimensionality of the mating
environment, probably directed sexual selection in birds
more toward mate choice than contests. Yet, phylogenetic
and selective considerations predict the opposite regarding
human mating competition, invalidating some inferences
from avian models.
More work is needed in identifying and testing the
variables affecting mechanisms of sexual selection across
species. A goal of this paper is to encourage such research.
The central goal, however, is to provide a framework for
future research on human sexual selection. Even for those
interested only in understanding mating in industrial nations,
where mate choice predominates, it will help to know the
contexts under which our preferences and other mating
behaviors evolved. It could be harmful, for example, to
underestimate the extent of male-male competition in
shaping human nature; an evolutionary history of male
contest competition is likely responsibleat least in part
for a host of social afflictions, including bullying, homicide,
gang violence, and war. A framework for understanding
human sexual selection is important because it affects how
we view our anatomical and behavioral traits, and because it
affects the kinds of questions that we ask about them.
Future work should investigate whether putative sexually
selected traits in men and women appear better designed for
contests, mate attraction, or another function by testing
competing hypotheses simultaneously. Cross-cultural work,
particularly in traditional societies, will be especially useful
to this end. Likewise, researchers should continue to explore
the determinants of mating and reproductive success across
populations and assess the relative contributions of dominance and attractiveness. Further exploration of the fossil
record will be essential for determining mating systems and
170
the extent of sexual dimorphism in our hominin ancestors.

The idea that contests were the main form of sexual selection
in men suggests that mate attraction through creative
displays may be an alternative mating tactic, a hypothesis
also inviting investigation.
Acknowledgments
I thank Drew Bailey, Mike Bailey, David Buss, Khytam
Dawood, Steve Gaulin, Martie Haselton, Jeffrey Kurland,
and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on
previous drafts; and Eric Seemiller and Lauren Catalano for
their assistance with literature review.
References
Abe, T., Kearns, C. F., & Fukunaga, T. (2003). Sex differences in whole
body skeletal muscle mass measured by magnetic resonance imaging
and its distribution in young Japanese adults. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 37(5), 436440.
Adams, D. B. (1983). Why there are so few women warriors. Behavior
Science Research, 18, 196212.
Adi, M., Ogden, G. R., & Chisholm, D. M. (1990). An analysis of
mandibular fractures in Dundee, Scotland (1977 to 1985). British
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 28(3), 194199.
Alexander, R. D. (1989). The evolution of the human psyche. In P. Mellars,
& C. Stringer (Eds.), The Human Revolution (pp. 455513). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., Lam, D., & Lancaster, J. B. (1999). Paternal
care by genetic fathers and stepfathers II: Reports by Xhosa high school
students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(6), 433451.
Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., & Lancaster, J. B. (1999). Paternal care by
genetic fathers and stepfathers I: Reports from Albuquerque men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(6), 405431.
Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., & Lancaster, J. B. (2007). Confidence of
paternity, divorce, and investment in children by Albuquerque men.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 110.
Andersson, M. (1982). Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a
widowbird. Nature, 299, 8181220.
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Ankney, C. D. (1992). Differences in brain size. Nature, 358(6387), 532.
Apostolou, M. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of
parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 28(6), 403409.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A
meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 4, 291322.
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in
aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3-4), 249266.
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition:
Copulation, masturbation, and infidelity. London: Chapman and Hall.
Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness:
Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology,
16(5), 395424.
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2,
349368.
Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Hughes, S., & Ashton, J. R. (2005). Measuring
paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(9), 749754.
Berglund, A., Bisazza, A., & Pilastro, A. (1996). Armaments and ornaments:
An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biological Journal
of the Linnean Society, 58, 385399.
Betzig, L. L. (1986). Darwinism and Differential Reproduction: A
Darwinian View of History. Hawthorne, MY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Betzig, L. L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study.

Current Anthropology, 30(5), 654676.
Betzig, L. L. (1995). Medieval monogamy. Journal of Family History, 20
(2), 181216.
Betzig, L. L. (2002). Croaks and tails or teeth and claws? Book review of
Miller on mating-mind. Psycoloquy, 13(009), 4.
Bongaarts, J., & Potter, R. G. (1986). Fertility, biology and behavior: An
analysis of proximate determinants. New York: Academic.
Booth, A., & Dabbs, J. M. (1993). Testosterone and men's marriages. Social
Forces, 72, 463477.
Boyd, I. L. (1989). Spatial and temporal distribution of Antarctic fur seals
(Arctocephalus gazella) on the breeding grounds at Bird Island, South
Georgia. Polar Biology, 10, 179185.
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and
appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 27(2), 121130.
Brown, G. R., Laland, K. N., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Bateman's
principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(6),
297304.
Bruckert, L., Lienard, J. S., Lacroix, A., Kreutzer, M., & Leboucher, G.
(2006). Women use voice parameters to assess men's characteristics.
Proceedings Biological Sciences, 273(1582), 8389.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452459.
Buss, D. (1996). Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insight into feminism and the
battle of the sexes. In D. Buss, & N. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power and
conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296318). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 149.
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395422.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2006). The evolution of aggression. In M.
Schaller, D. T. Kenrick, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Evolution and social
psychology (pp. 263286). New York: Psychology Press.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semelroth, J. (1997). Sex
differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251255.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100
(2), 204232.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in
evolutionary psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology Review,
17(6), 605619.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all:
Good genes, investment, parenting indicators, and commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134146.
Caizergues, A., & Lambrechts, M. M. (1999). Male macho mammals
exploiting females versus male Don Juan birds exploited by females: The
opposite-sex exploitation (OSEX) theory. Ecology Letters, 2, 204206.
Cant, J. G. H. (1981). Hypothesis for the evolution of human breasts and
buttocks. The American Naturalist, 117, 199204.
Cashdan, E. (1996). Women's mating strategies. Evolutionary Anthropology,
5, 134143.
Cashdan, E. (1998). Are men more competitive than women? British
Journal of Social Psychology, 37(Pt 2), 213229.
Chagnon, N. A. (1979). Mate competition, favoring close kin, and village
fissioning among the Yanomamo Indians. In N. Chagon, & W. Irons
(Eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Human Social Behavior (pp. 86132).
North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
Chagnon, N. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal
population. Science, 239(4843), 985992.
Chagnon, N. A. (1992). Yanomamo. (4th ed.) Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth.
Chaix, R., Cao, C., & Donnelly, P. (2008). Is mate choice in humans MHCdependent? PLoS Genetics, 4(9), e1000184.
Chapais, B. (2008). Primeval kinship: How pair bonding gave birth to
human society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Charlton, B. D., Reby, D., & McComb, K. (2007). Female red deer prefer
the roars of larger males. Biology Letters, 3(4), 382385.
Cheuvront, S. N., Carter, R., Deruisseau, K. C., & Moffatt, R. J. (2005).
Running performance differences between men and women: an update.
Sports Medicine, 35(12), 10171024.
Christensen,J.(2004).WarfareintheEuropeanNeolithic.ActaArchaeologica,
75, 129156.
Christy, J. H., & Salmon, M. (1991). Comparative studies of reproductive
behavior in mantis shrimps and fiddler crabs. American Zoologist, 31,
329337.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Harvey, P. H. (1976). Evolutionary rules and
primate societies. In P. P. G. Bateson, & R. A. Hinde (Eds.), Growing
points in ethology (pp. 195237). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Harvey, P. H. (1984). Comparative approaches to
investigating adaptation. In J. R. Krebs, & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral ecology: An evolutionary approach (2nd ed., pp. 729). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Harvey, P. H., & Rudder, B. (1977). Sexual
dimorphism, socionomic sex ratio and body weight in primates.
Nature, 269(5631), 797800.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment in animal
societies. Nature, 373(6511), 209216.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Vincent, A. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the
potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 5860.
Collins, S. A., & Missing, C. (2003). Vocal and visual attractiveness are
related in women. Animal Behaviour, 6, 9971004.
Connor, R. C., Richards, A. F., Smolker, R. A., & Mann, J. (1996). Patterns
of female attractiveness in Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. Behaviour,
133(1-2), 3769.
Cooper, V. J., & Hosey, C. R. (2003). Sexual dichromatism and female
preference in Eulemur fulvus subspecies. International Journal of
Primatology, 24(6), 11771188.
Crane, J. (1975). Fiddler Crabs of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Crockett, C. M. (1987). Howler monkeys: Diet, dimorphism, and
demography: perspectives from howlers to hominids. In W. G. Kinzey
(Ed.), The evolution of human behavior: Primate models (pp. 115138).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Crook, J. H. (1972). Sexual selection, dimorphism, and social organization
in the primates. In B. G. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the
descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 231281). Chicago: Aldine.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments in the sociobiology of female facial beauty.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925935.
D'Andrade, R. (1974). Sex differences and cultural institutions. In R. A.
LeVine (Ed.), Culture and Personality (pp. 1639). New Brunswick,
NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Dabbs, J. M., & Mallinger, A. (1999). High testosterone levels predict low
voice pitch among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 27,
801804.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior. (2nd ed.)
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Daly, M., Wilson, M. I., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 1127.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection.
London: Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex.
London: Murray.
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett,
D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., et al. (2006). Correlated preferences
for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1592),
13551360.
Diamond, J. (1997). Why is sex fun? The Evolution of human sexuality. New
York: Basic Books.
171
Dickemann, M. (1981). Paternal confidence and dowry competition: A

biocultural analysis of purdah. In R. D. Alexander, & D. W. Tinkel
(Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior: Recent research and new
theory (pp. 417438). New York: Chiron Press.
Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T. R., Semaw, S., & Rogers, M. J.
(2005). Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona,
Afar, Ethiopia: Implications for the function of the world's oldest stone
tools. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(2), 109121.
Eberhard, W. G. (1979). The function of horns in Podischnus agenor
(Dynastinae) and other beetles. In M. S. Blum, & N. A. Blum (Eds.),
Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (pp. 231258).
New York: Academic Press.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ellis, L., Hershberger, S., Field, E., Wersinger, S., Pellis, S., Geary, D., et al.
(2008). Sex differences: Summarizing more than a century of scientific
research. New York.
Emlen, D. J. (2008). The evolution of animal weapons. Annual Review in
Ecology & Evolution System, 39, 387413.
Emlen, D. J., & Philips, T. K. (2006). Phylogenetic evidence for an
association between tunneling behavior and the evolution of horns in
dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Coleopterists
Society Monographs, 5, 4756.
Emlen, S. T. (1976). Lek organization and mating strategies in the bullfrog.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 1, 283313.
Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the
evolution of mating systems. Science, 197(4300), 215223.
Evans, S., Neave, N., Wakelin, D., & Hamilton, C. (2008). The relationship
between testosterone and vocal frequencies in human males. Physiology
and Behavior, 93(4-5), 783788.
Fedigan, L. M. (1982). Primate Paradigms. Montreal: Eden Press.
Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I.
(2005). Manipulations of fundamental and formant frequencies affect the
attractiveness of human male voices. Animal Behaviour, 69, 561568.
Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2009). The influence of female attractiveness on
competitor derogation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2),
141155.
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Flinn, M. V., Quinlan, R. L., Ward, C. V., & Coe, M. K. (2007). Evolution
of the human family: Cooperative males, long social childhoods,
smart mothers, and extended kin networks. In C. Salmon, & T.
Shackelford (Eds.), Family relationships (pp. 1638). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist, 139, 603622.
Fox, R. (1980). The Red Lamp of Incest. New York: Dutton.
Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests
of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33(8), 11671183.
Fuller, R. C. (1998). Sperm competition affects male behaviour and sperm
output in the rainbow darter. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 265, 23652371.
Gallup, G. G., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parvez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L.,
& Davis, J. A. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277289.
Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness:
Implications for mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4, 205235.
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J.
(2007). Changes in women's mate preferences across the ovulatory
cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151163.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). On the evolutionary psychology
of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 23, 573587.
Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., &
Christensen, P. N. (2004). Women's preferences for male behavioral
displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15
(3), 203207.
172
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of

extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 18(2), 6988.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in
women's preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265(1399), 927933.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Individual differences in
developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: A model and its
implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 406416.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Facial masculinity and fluctuating
asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 231241.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human oestrus. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1638), 9911000.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Women's
sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner
developmental instability. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 272(1576),
20232027.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in
women's sexual interests and their partners' mate-retention tactics
across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest.
Proceedings Biological Sciences, 269(1494), 975982.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness,
developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 15, 7385.
Gat, A. (2006). War in Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gaulin, S., & Sailer, L. D. (1984). Sexual dimorphism in weight among the
primates: The relative impact of allometry and sexual selection. International Journal of Primatology, 5(6), 515535.
Gaulin, S. J. C., & Boster, J. S. (1985). Cross cultural differences in sexual
dimorphism: Is there any variance to be explained. Ethology and
Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior
and the human family. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1(1), 561.
Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2002). Sex differences in behavioral and
hormonal response to social threat: Commentary on Taylor et al. (2000).
Psychological Review, 109(4), 745750.
Gladstone, W. (1987). The eggs and larvae of the sharpnose pufferfish
Canthigaster valentini (Pisces: Tetraodontidae) are unpalatable to
other reef fishes. Copeia, 1, 227230.
Goodall, J. (1968). The behavior of free-living chimpanzees in the Gombe
Stream Reserve. Animal Behavior Monographs, 1, 165311.
Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. S., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T.
(2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone
in males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 193201.
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women's sexual strategies: The hidden
dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences,
28, 929963.
Gross, M. R., & MacMillan, A. M. (1981). Predation and the evolution of
colonial nesting in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 8(3), 163174.
Grossman, C. J. (1985). Interactions between the gonadal steroids and the
immune system. Science, 227(4684), 257261.
Guthrie, R. D. (1970). Evolution of human threat display organs. In T.
Dobzansky, M. K. Hecht, & W. C. Steers (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology
(pp. 257302). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds:
A role for parasites? Science, 218(4570), 384387.
Harcourt, A. H., Harvey, P. H., Larson, S. G., & Short, R. V. (1981). Testis
weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature, 293
(5827), 5557.
Harcourt, A. H., Purvis, A., & Liles, L. (1995). Sperm competition: Mating
system, not breeding season, affects testes size of primates. Functional
Ecology, 9, 468476.
Harrison, M. E., & Chivers, D. J. (2007). The orang-utan mating system and
the unflanged male: A product of increased food stress during the late
Miocene and Pliocene? Journal of Human Evolution, 52(3), 275293.
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of

women's desires and men's mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle.
Hormones and Behavior, 49, 509518.
Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women's fertility across the cycle
increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence compared
to wealth. Human Nature, 17(1), 5073.
Haug, R. H., Prather, J., & Indresano, A. T. (1990). An epidemiologic
survey of facial fractures and concomitant injuries. Journal of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery, 48(9), 926932.
Hawkes, K. (1990). Why do men hunt? Benefits for risky choices. In E.
Cashdan (Ed.), Risk and uncertainty in tribal and peasant economies
(pp. 146166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hawkes, K. (1991). Showing off: Tests of an hypothesis about men's
foraging goals. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 2954.
Hewlett, B. S. (1992). Husband-wife reciprocity and the father-infant
relationship among Aka pygmies. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father-child
relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 153176). New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Ache life history: The ecology and
demography of a foraging people. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hillgarth, N. (1990). Parasites and female choice in the ring-necked
pheasant. American Zoologist, 30, 227233.
Hines, M., Fane, B. A., Pasterski, V. L., Mathews, G. A., Conway, G. S., &
Brook, C. (2003). Spatial abilities following prenatal androgen
abnormality: Targeting and mental rotations performance in individuals
with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28(8),
10101026.
Horvath, T. (1981). Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso
parameters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10(1), 2124.
Howell, N. (1979). Demography of the Dobe !Kung. New York: Academic
Press.
Hrdy, S. B. (1979). Infanticide among mammals: A review, classification,
and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of
females. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 1340.
Hrdy, S. B. (1997). Raising Darwin's consciousness: Female sexuality and
the prehominid origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 8(1), 149.
Hughes, S. M., Dispenza, F., & Gallup, G. G. (2004). Ratings of voice
attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 25, 295304.
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2002). The sound of
symmetry: Voice as a marker of developmental instability. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 23, 173180.
Irwing, P., & Lynn, R. (2005). Sex differences in means and variability on
the progressive matrices in university students: A meta-analysis. British
Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 4), 505524.
Jasienska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I.
(2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive
potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 271(1545), 12131217.
Johanna, A., Forsberg, L., & Tullberg, B. S. (1995). The relationship
between cumulative number of cohabiting partners and number of
children for men and women in modern Sweden. Ethology and
Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001).
Male facial attractiveness: Evidence of hormone-mediated adaptive
design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251267.
Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five
populations. Human Nature, 4(3), 271296.
Jungers, W. L., & Susman, R. L. (1984). Body size and skeletal allometry in
African apes. In R. L. Susman (Ed.), The pygmy chimpanzee:
Evolutionary biology and behavior (pp. 131177). New York: Plenum.
Kaar, P., Jokela, J., Merila, J., Helle, T., & Kojola, I. (1998). Sexual conflict
and remarriage in preindustrial human populations: Causes and fitness
consequences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 139151.
Kaighobadi, F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Suspicions of female infidelity
predict men's partner-directed violence.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
32(3-4), 281282 (discussion 292-311).

Kaighobadi, F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., & Popp, D. (2008). Male
mate retention mediates the relationship between female sexual infidelity
and female-directed violence. Personality and Individual Differences,
44, 14221431.
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory
of human life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity.
Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(4), 156185.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution,
traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental
investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97116.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
Knott, C. D., Emery Thompson, M., Stumpf, R. M., & McIntyre, M. H.
(2009). Female reproductive strategies in orangutans, evidence for
female choice and counterstrategies to infanticide in a species with
frequent sexual coercion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 277(1678), 105113.
Kodrick-Brown, A., & Brown, J. H. (1984). The kinds of traits favored by
sexual selection. American Naturalist, 124(3), 309323.
Lancaster, J. B., & Kaplan, H. S. (2009). The endocrinology of the human
adaptive complex. In P. T. Ellison, & P. B. Gray (Eds.), Endocrinology
of social relationships (pp. 95118). Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: Is
gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources?
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. (2006). Changes in body fat distribution in
relation to parity in American women: A covert form of maternal
depletion. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 131(2),
295302.
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2009). Costs and benefits of fat-free muscle
mass in men: Relationship to mating success, dietary requirements, and
natural immunity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 322328.
Le Boeuf, B. J. (1974). Male-male competition and reproductive success in
elephant seals. American Zoologist, 14, 163176.
Leakey, M. G., Feibel, C. S., McDougall, I., Ward, C., & Walker, A. (1998).
New specimens and confirmation of an early age for Australopithecus
anamensis. Nature, 393(6680), 6266.
Leridon, H. (1977). Human fertility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lerner, G. (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Leutenegger, W., & Cheverud, J. (1982). Correlates of sexual dimorphism in
primates: Ecological and size variables. International Journal of
Primatology, 3(4), 387402.
Leutenegger, W., & Kelly, J. T. (1977). Relationship of sexual dimorphism
in canine size and body size to social, behavioral, and ecological
correlates in anthropoid primates. Primates, 18(1), 117136.
Lever, J., Frederick, D. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does size matter? Men's
and women's views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychology of Men
and Masculinity, 7, 129143.
Lie, H. C., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2008). Genetic diversity
revealed in human faces. Evolution, 62(10), 24732486.
Lindenfors, P., Froberg, L., & Nunn, C. L. (2004). Females drive primate
social evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 271(Suppl 3), S101S103.
Lindenfors, P., Tullberg, B. S., & Biuw, M. (2002). Phylogenetic analyses of
sexual selection and sexual size dimorphism in pinnipeds. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 52, 188193.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Low, B. S. (1979). Sexual selection and human ornamentation. In N. A.
Chagnon, & W. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social
behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 462487). North
Scituate, MA: Duxbury.
Low, B. S. (2005). Women's lives there, here, then, now: A review of
women's ecological and demographic constraints cross-culturally.
Low, B. S., Alexander, R. D., & Noonan, K. M. (1987). Human hips, breasts
and buttocks: Is fat deceptive? Ethology and Sociobiology, 8(4),
249257.
173
Marlowe, F. W. (1998). The nubility hypothesis: The human breast as an

honest signal of residual reproductive value. Human Nature, 9(3),
263271.
Marlowe, F. W. (2003). A critical period for provisioning by Hadza men
Implications for pair bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24,
217229.
Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers.
Human Nature, 15, 365376.
Marlowe, F. W. (2005). Hunter-gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 14, 5467.
Marlowe, F. W., Apicella, C. L., & Reed, D. (2005). Men's preferences for
women's profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 26, 458468.
Mateos, C., & Carranza, J. (1996). On the intersexual selection for spurs in
the ring-necked pheasant. Behavioral Ecology, 7(3), 362369.
Mayhew, J. L., & Salm, P. C. (1990). Gender differences in anaerobic power
tests. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology, 60(2), 133138.
McArthur, L. Z., & Berry, D. S. (1983). Impressions of baby-faced adults.
Social Cognition, 2, 315342.
Miller, G. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review
of sexual selection and human evolution. In C. B. Crawford, & D.
Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues,
and applications (pp. 87130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the
evolution of human nature. New York: Doubleday.
Miller, G. F. (2001). Mating-mind. Psycoloquy, 12(008), 1.
Moller, A. P., & Pomiankowski, A. (1993). Fluctuating assymmetry and
sexual selection. Genetica, 98, 267279.
Moller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (1997). A meta-analysis of the heritability
of developmental stability. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10,
116.
Morton, E. S. (1977). One the occurrence and significance of motivation
structural rules in some bird and mammal species. The American
Naturalist, 111, 855869.
Morton, E. S., & Page, J. (1992). Animal talk: Science and the voices of
nature. New York: Random House.
Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as
a predictor of later rank. Social Forces, 74(3), 823850.
Muller, M. N., Kahlenberg, S. M., Emery Thompson, M., & Wrangham, R.
W. (2007). Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for
female chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 274(1612), 10091014.
Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Muscarella, F., & Cunningham, M. R. (1996). The evolutionary significance
and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 17, 99117.
Neave, N., & Shields, K. (2008). The effects of facial hair
manipulation on female perceptions of attractiveness, masculinity,
and dominance in male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 373377.
Nishida, T., & Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. (1987). Chimpanzee and bonobos:
Cooperative relationships among males. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney,
R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate
Societies (pp. 165177). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Noble, G. K. (1938). Sexual selection among the fishes. Biological Reviews,
13, 133158.
Nunn, C. L. (1999). The evolution of exaggerated sexual swellings in
primates and the graded-signal hypothesis. Animal Behaviour, 58(2),
229246.
Parsons, P. A. (1990). Fluctuating asymmetry: An epigenetic measure of
stress. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 65
(2), 131145.
Parsons, P. A. (1992). Fluctuating asymmetry: A biological monitor of
environmental and genomic stress. Heredity, 68(Pt 4), 361364.
174
Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women's preferences for sexual

dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected
duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70(1), 3843.
Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2008). Women's body morphology and
preferences for sexual partners' characteristics. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 29(1), 1925.
Payne, R. B. (1984). Sexual selection, lek and arena behavior, and sexual
size dimorphism in birds. Ornithological Monographs, 33, 153.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). A longitudinal study of boys' rough-and-tumble
play and dominance during early adolescence. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 16, 7793.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature
and function of a neglected aspect of playing. Child Development, 69(3),
577598.
Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt,
D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial
attractiveness. Nature, 394(6696), 884887.
Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness
predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and
male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247258.
Plavcan, J. M., Lockwood, C. A., Kimbel, W. H., Lague, M. R., & Harmon,
E. H. (2005). Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis revisited:
How strong is the case for a human-like pattern of dimorphism? Journal
of Human Evolution, 48(3), 313320.
Plavcan, J. M., & van Schaik, C. P. (1997). Intrasexual competition and
body weight dimorphism in anthropoid primates. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 103(1), 3768.
Pond, C. M., & Mattacks, C. A. (1987). The anatomy of adipose tissue in
captive macaca monkeys and its implications for human biology. Folia
Primatologica, 48, 164185.
Prokosch, M. D., Coss, R. G., Scheib, J. E., & Blozis, S. A. (2009).
Intelligence and mate choice: Intelligent men are always appealing.
Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women's
preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26,
388397.
Puts, D. A. (2006). Cyclic variation in women's preferences for masculine
traits: Potential hormonal causes. Human Nature, 17(1), 114127.
Puts, D. A., & Dawood, K. (2006). The evolution of female orgasm:
Adaptation or byproduct? Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9(3),
467472.
Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the
evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and
Puts, D. A., Hodges, C., Cardenas, R. A., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2007). Men's
voices as dominance signals: Vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and
Quinn, T. P., Adkison, M. D., & Ward, M. B. (1996). Behavioral tactics of
male sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) under varying operational
sex ratios. Ethology, 102, 304322.
Quinn, T. P., Hendry, A. P., & Buck, G. P. (2001). Balancing natural and
sexual selection in sockeye salmon: Interactions between body size,
reproductive opportunity and vulnerability to predation by bears. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 3, 917937.
Reby, D., McComb, K., Cargnelutti, B., Darwin, C., Fitch, W. T., &
Clutton-Brock, T. (2005). Red deer stags use formants as assessment
cues during intrasexual agonistic interactions. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1566), 941947.
Reno, P. L., Meindl, R. S., McCollum, M. A., & Lovejoy, C. O. (2003).
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of
modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 100(16), 94049409.
Reno, P. L., Meindl, R. S., McCollum, M. A., & Lovejoy, C. O. (2005). The
case is unchanged and remains robust: Australopithecus afarensis
exhibits only moderate skeletal dimorphism. A reply to Plavcan et al.
(2005). Journal of Human Evolution, 49(2), 279288.
Rhodes, G., Hickford, C., & Jeffery, L. (2000). Sex-typicality and

attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive?
British Journal of Psychology, 91(Pt 1), 125140.
Rikowski, A., & Grammer, K. (1999). Human body odour, symmetry and
attractiveness. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 266(1422), 869874.
Rilling, J., Kaufman, T., Smith, E., Patel, R., & Worthman, C. (2009).
Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of
human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(1),
2131.
Roberts, S. C., & Little, A. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary genes
and human mate preferences. Genetica, 134(1), 3143.
Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I.,
Carter, V., et al. (2005). MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans.
Biology Letters, 1(4), 400403.
Robertson, D. R., & Hoffman, S. G. (1977). The roles of female mate choice
and predation in the mating systems of some tropical labriod fishes.
Zeitschrift fr Tierphysiologie, 45, 298320.
Rodman, P. S., & Mitani, J. C. (1987). Orangutans: Sexual dimorphism in a
solitary species. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W.
Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate Societies (pp. 146154).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ryan, M. J., & Rand, A. S. (1995). Female responses to ancestral
advertisement calls in tungara frogs. Science, 269(5222), 390392.
Savalli, U. M. (2001). Sexual selection. In C. W. Fox, D. A. Roff, & D. J.
Fairbairn (Eds.), Evolutionary ecology: Concepts and case studies
(pp. 207221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial
attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266(1431), 19131917.
Scherer, M., Sullivan, W. G., Smith, D. J., Jr., Phillips, L. G., & Robson, M.
C. (1989). An analysis of 1,423 facial fractures in 788 patients at an
urban trauma center. Journal of Trauma, 29(3), 388390.
Scheyd, G. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). Physical
attractiveness: Signals of phenotypic quality and beyond. In C. B.
Crawford, & D. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 239260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and
competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived
effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(6), 11851204.
Schtzwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall
of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less
threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4),
249257.
Schwagmeyer, P. L., & Woontner, S. J. (1986). Scramble competition
polygyny in thirteen-lined ground squirrels: The relative contributions of
overt conflict and competitive mate searching. Behavior Ecology and
Seiler, S., De Koning, J. J., & Foster, C. (2007). The fall and rise of the
gender difference in elite anaerobic performance 1952-2006. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39(3), 534540.
Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven,
M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and
fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575584.
Short, R. V. (1979). Sexual selection and its components parts, somatic and
genital selection, as illustrated by man and the great apes. Advances in
the Study of Behavior, 9, 131158.
Simmons, L. W., Firman, R. C., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2004). Human
sperm competition: Testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair
copulations. Animal Behaviour, 68, 297302.
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P. N., & Leck, K. (1999).
Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive
tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1),
159172.
Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women's attractiveness: The critical role
of waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 4(3), 297321.

Singh, D. (1995). Female health, attractiveness and desirability for
relationships: Role of breast asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 465481.
Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, beast
and hips: Role in judgements of female attractiveness and desirability for
relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483507.
Small, M. F. (1992). The evolution of female sexuality and mate selection in
humans. Human Nature, 3(2), 133156.
Smuts, B. (1987). Sexual competition and mate choice. In B. B. Smuts, D. L.
Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.),
Primate societies (pp. 385399). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6
(1), 132.
Smuts, B. (1996). Male aggression against women: An evolutionary
perspective. In D. M. Buss, & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power,
conflict. evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 231268). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Snedden, W. A. (1990). Determinants of male mating success in the
temperate crayfish Orconectes rusticus: Chela size and sperm
competition. Behaviour, 15(1-2), 100113.
Sneddon, L. U., Huntingford, F. A., & Taylor, A. C. (1997). Weapon size
versus body size as a predictor of winning in fights between shore crabs,
Carcinus maenas (L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 41(4),
237242.
Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The
dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?
Personal Relationships, 15, 425444.
Sojat, A. J., Meisami, T., Sandor, G. K. B., & Clokie, C. M. L. (2001). The
epidemiology of mandibular fractures treated at the Toronto General
Hospital: A review of 246 cases. Journal of the Canadian Dental
Association, 67(11), 640644.
Spencer, H. (1885). The Principles of Sociology. New York: Appelton.
Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waisthip ratio
and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of a critical test.
Symons, D. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human
sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20,
175201.
Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One
ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20,
105120.
Tobalske, B. W., & Dial, K. P. (2000). Effects of body size on take-off flight
performance in the Phasianidae (Aves). Journal of Experimental
Biology, 203(Pt 21), 33193332.
Trivers, R. R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.
Cambell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971
(pp. 136179). London: Heinemann.
175
Turner, G. F. (1993). Teleost mating behaviour. In T. J. Pitcher (Ed.),

Behaviour of Teleost Fishes (2nd ed., pp. 307332). London:
Chapman and Hall.
Van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1971). Tool using in primates and other vertebrates.
In D. S. Lehrman, R. A. Hinde, & E. Shaw (Eds.), Advances in the study
of behavior, 3. (pp. 195250). New York: Academic Press.
van Valen, L. (1962). A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution, 16,
125142.
von Schantz, T., Wittzell, H., Gransson, G., Grahn, M., & Persson, K.
(1996). MHC genotype and male ornamentation: Genetic evidence for
the Hamilton-Zuk model. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 263,
265271.
Walker, P. L. (2001). A bioarcheological perspective on the history of
violence. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 573596.
Ward, C., Leakey, M., & Walker, A. (1999). The new hominid species
Australopithecus anamensis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 7, 197205.
Watson, N. V., & Kimura, D. (1991). Nontrivial sex differences in throwing
and intercepting: Relation to psychometrically-defined spatial functions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 375385.
Watson, P. J. (1990). Female-enhance male competition determines the first
mate and principle sire in the spider Linyphia litigiosa. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, 7790.
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence:
The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 5973.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). An evolutionary psychological perspective
on male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Violence and
Victims, 8(3), 271294.
Wilson, M. I., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence
against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(1), 27.
Wood, J. W. (1992). Dynamics of human reproduction: Biology, biometry,
demography. Aldine de Gruyter: Hawthorne, NY.
Wrangham, R. W. (1987). The significance of African apes for reconstructing
human social evolution. In W. G. Kinzey (Ed.), The evolution of human
behavior: Primate models (pp. 5171). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Wrangham, R. W. (1999). Evolution of coalitionary killing. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology (Suppl 29), 130.
Wrangham, R. W., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic Males. Boston: Mariner
Press.
Wyckoff, G. J., Wang, W., & Wu, C. I. (2000). Rapid evolution of male
reproductive genes in the descent of man. Nature, 403(6767), 304309.
Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997). The Handicap Principle. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Zeh, D. W. (1987). Life history consequences of sexual dimorphism in a
chernetid pseudoscorpion. Ecology, 68, 14951501.
Zihlman, A. L., & MacFarland, R. K. (2000). Body mass in lowland gorillas:
A quantitative analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
113, 6178.

Beauty and The Beast Mechanisms of Sexual Selection in Humans1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beauty and The Beast Mechanisms of Sexual Selection in Humans1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157 175

Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans

E-mail address: dap27@psu.edu.

evolutionary psychology reinforces this impression. The

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

But has mate choice been the primary mechanism of

2.1. Mechanisms of sexual selection

2.1.1. Constraints on contest competition

Darwin (1859; 1871) proposed sexual selection to explain

Despite such advances toward our understanding of

Fig. 1. Different mechanisms of sexual selection are theoretically distinct

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

and predator risk determine the distribution of females,

2.1.2. The dimensionality hypothesis

Fig. 2. Small discs, hemispheres and spheres represent females' movement

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

consequently, other mechanisms of sexual selection. For

favoring larger canines for predator defense (Leutenegger &

3. Sexual selection in humans

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Value of variable (prediction regarding

can tentatively conclude that it evolved for this function.

3.2.1. Evidence of design for male contests

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

(Bruckert, Lienard, Lacroix, Kreutzer, & Leboucher, 2006;

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

source of food only as early as perhaps 2.5 million years ago

(e.g., Chagnon, 1988). Such raids may also function in mate

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

females while having to defend (and invest in) only one

(Buss, 1989; Hawkes, 1990, 1991) and increased mates'

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Two putative good-genes indicators are androgen-dependent

(reviewed in Gangestad & Thornhill, 2008). Symmetrical,

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

and men's traits subsequently evolved to assume a more

of dominance than they do on attractiveness. For example, in

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

hypothesis offers explanations for the evolution of large

3.3.3. Does female choice drive male dominance competition?

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Indeed, preferences are costly and generally do not evolve

To the extent that men vary in their ability to protect and

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

storage of essential fats for fetal and infant brain development

but the importance of male contests appears to contradict a

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

the extent of sexual dimorphism in our hominin ancestors.

Betzig, L. L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study.

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Dickemann, M. (1981). Paternal confidence and dowry competition: A

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of

Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Marlowe, F. W. (1998). The nubility hypothesis: The human breast as an

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women's preferences for sexual

Rhodes, G., Hickford, C., & Jeffery, L. (2000). Sex-typicality and

D.A. Puts / Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010) 157175

Turner, G. F. (1993). Teleost mating behaviour. In T. J. Pitcher (Ed.),

You might also like